I was thinking about mistakes, (whatever you want to call them) that the Church has made over the years that could have been avoided and are non-doctrinal in nature (e.g., policy/PR decisions, other decisions) and have resulted in significant negative publicity that could have been avoided.

I know for many this is an uncomfortable topic, but I think we need to learn from our past mistakes. In addition, the list below is simply my opinion. Others may feel that some of the below were unavoidable and doctrinal. Here is my Top 10 list in no particular order of priority:

1. Prop 8 – The Church got in over their heads and paid a price. This was recent and I have seen a lot of fall-out from it. Long-term fall-out hard to judge but clearly it is NOT a positive.
2. Fight Against Prohibition – Mormons put the last nail in the coffin against the Prophet’s wishes and booze was again flowing in the US. I don’t think this outright revolt against the leaders could happen today – we are too conditioned to “follow the prophet”
3. ERA – The Church put up a fight against something that went away on its own – was it worth the price?
4. Blacks and the Priesthood – while some may say this is doctrinal, I do not believe it was doctrinal but a policy. How much would things have been different if the Church had actually ordained persons of African descent 10, 20, 50 or 100 years earlier?
5. September Seven – While some may think this was a small issue, it caused a tremendous amount of damage by alienating intellectuals many of whom are valuable contributors to the Church.
6. Mormon Doctrine – maybe allowing an apostle to call a book of his opinions “Mormon Doctrine” wasn’t such a good idea after all..
7. Polygamy – still dealing with this one whether it was a mistake or not, who knows…
8. Recommending that women NOT serve missions – Overall a terrible message which both demotivated the Sisters who serve and caused many others not to serve. Resulted in a drop in female missionaries.
9. Mountain Meadows – A really tragic move by the Saints (whether Brigham approved or not) and resulted in a lot of damage over the years…
10. Relentless calling of “White Western Americans” into Church leadership posiitons – and we wonder why people think we are an “American” church?

I guess I’m still one of the minority who thinks that the Church leadership deliberately got into Prop 8, knew what was going to result, and isn’t necessarily disappointed with the results. I think it was a make-or-break moment for the Church and had less to do with gay marriage than it did being a “Zions Camp” moment.

1. Prop 8…. Not a mistake. Perhaps there was too _strong_ or too vociferous lobbying by the church, but the support of Prop 8 in and of itself was not a mistake. The horrors of the societal and individual fallouts of SSM have yet to be seen or even imagined by the populace as a whole. Our society has been hood-winked on this issue, and few see the true issues or true direction this is taking us. SSM is based on several “BIG LIES”. But, unfortunately, people won’t see that until it’s too late.

2. Fight Against Prohibition. I’m too unfamiliar with the history of this to say.

3. ERA – The Church put up a fight against something that went away on its own – was it worth the price?

Probably. ERA was a bad thing, and the church was on the right side of the issue.

4. Blacks and the Priesthood.

We don’t know the Lord’s bird’s-eye view on this yet. Based on what President McKay said about it, quoted in his biography, the ban was confirmed to him, or at least it was confirmed to him that the time to lift the ban had not arrived. There is something (or thing) that the Lord has not told us about this issue. Perhaps because we are not ready to receive (or capable of accepting) the real reasons. The Lord is not politically correct, but we, as a society, are. If he told us something that we did not or could not accept (ie, due to our political correctness) we would be damned for sinning against that knowledge. This may be a case where the Lord is thinking to himself “You can’t handle the truth.” Or, it may simply be that the answer is tied to information that he just prefers be kept behind the veil for now.

5. September Seven – While some may think this was a small issue, it caused a tremendous amount of damage by alienating intellectuals many of whom are valuable contributors to the Church.

Oh boo-hoo. The poor dears. The people who think they are so smart got their feelings hurt. Their fellow-travellers were ex’ed. My heart bleeds. Oh, cry me a river. If they were really smart, they’d understand, but they don’t get it.

“Intellectual” does not mean “intelligent”. They are not synonyms. And being a “scholar” does not mean one is intelligent either, nor spiritual, nor a person of understanding. Nor does “educated” equate to intelligence or wisdom. (See that cool quote by Jacob in the Book of Mormon.)

But seriously now, I believe that excommunications are not done without inspiration. If others were alienated over it, then it was either their choice to be alienated, or it was somehow meant to alienate them. The Lord does not work in a vacuum. I have a feeling that those who were alienated (not the ex’ed ones) over it, had somewhat of a guilty conscience, likely knowing that they were just as guilty of apostasy as the six (or seven).

But as Elder Holland put it, you don’t get ex’ed over personal apostasy, you get ex’ed over advocacy of apostasy.

6. Mormon Doctrine – maybe allowing an apostle to call a book of his opinions “Mormon Doctrine” wasn’t such a good idea after all..

I’ll agree on this one. But I think maybe that the good outweighed the bad.

7. Polygamy – still dealing with this one whether it was a mistake or not, who knows…

I believe the Doctrine and Covenants about the matter.

8. Recommending that women NOT serve missions…

First, I don’t believe that that is the policy. My understanding is that women are not _encouraged_, but that’s not the same as “recommending against”. I think you’re misrepresenting the current policy a bit.

Maybe not all policy, but I believe major policy things are not done without confirmation from the Lord. That’s a major policy that affects a big chunk of missionary work. And I believe the Brethren seek confirmation on those things.

9. Mountain Meadows – A really tragic move by the Saints (whether Brigham approved or not) and resulted in a lot of damage over the years…

Well, duh. Big mistake. As I understand the history, BY had no chance to communicate his wishes before it was carried out. In fact, word was sent back to allow the migrants to pass un-hindered. It was totally a local thing. Worst thing that could be accused against higher-ups was delay in bringing the local leaders/instigators of it to justice.

10. Relentless calling of “White Western Americans” into Church leadership posiitons – and we wonder why people think we are an “American” church?

I strongly disagree here. I don’t believe in quotas. I don’t believe in affirmative action. I don’t think the Lord does either. Scripture says he looks on the heart of the individual, not external factors. I believe calls to GA positions are inspired and confirmed to the Brethren.

I believe all callings of Stake presidents are confirmed by the Spirit to either a GA or Area Authority 70. And I believe all callings to the 70’s (all quorums) are confirmed by the Spirit to the Brethren.

I want to believe that all callings to a bishop are inspired, and I believe the vast majority are, but I suppose a few could slip by.

Going further down the line, I’ve had bishops tell me that not all ward callings are inspired, sometimes they just have to make do, and go by a best-guess. But at least they _try_ to receive inspiration on ward callings.

How do you consider Proposition 8 non-doctrinal? It relates directly to doctrine; it’s fundamentally connected to the family and the family is fundamental to the Plan of Exaltation. (My own personal name for what President Hinckley called the Plan of Happiness.)

Also polygamy seems pretty clearly to have been a doctrinal issue, since it was introduced to the church by revelation and printed in the Doctrine and Covenants. Even if you don’t personally believe it was a revelation, it was still presented and (largely) accepted as such by the people of the church.

One disaster was the church membership adopting fads and trends and picking up crap like that and mixing it into the Church and Gospel. Namely, but not limited to, Franklin Planners, the whole 1990’s era style motivational speakers stuff, Stephen Coveyism-mission visions, plans and goals that go nowhere. I think that somehow the Church today is less relevant in life. They got away from the 70’s style activities and replaced it with nothing and I think people see Church as something that you play for 3 hours, maybe, on sunday and that’s it with no real spiritual development. I am constantly amazed at how little doctrine and disbelief people have in the Church.

Regarding the politically incorrect ones, such as Prop 8, what comes most forcefully to mind is Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith’s prophecy (or maybe Joseph F.) that one of the three greatest challenges the church would face, would be the flattery of prominent men.

I don’t think worldly popularity is a high priority for the Lord. If anything, I would suspect he prefers a degree of unpopularity, so that it requires a minimum of faith and commitment out of us.

1. queuno – intersting theory, not sure I believe there was that much foresight into it.

2. Bookslinger – Appreciate the responses – don’t necessarily agree with you, but that is not surprising. Rather than respond to each of your responses, I did have a couple of questions: How was the ERA a bad thing? I wasn’t asking for quotas, but it is clear that you call who you know. Given the GAs know the local folks who are leaders, friends, etc, that is who is often called IMO.

3. Proud Daughter of Eve – Prop 8 is really complicated in my mind as giving people free agency is doctrinal as well – so I could tell you the whole thing was against doctrine..

9. Trevor – you are right, we do not learn from our mistakes as a Church because no one wants to feel like they are “steadying the ark” which is unfortunate. Pattern to the mistakes – good question but nothing comes to mind immediately.

I think the location and language of the conference talk that set this up matter. Many treated it as a deemphasis; but I think Pres. Hinckley was not so much trying to discourage sisters from serving as telling men to stop telling sisters that they (the sisters) had better stop telling sisters to go on missions for no better reason than being unmarried by a certain age.

I totally count Margaret Tuscano in the group, and it’s a shame- she’s an amazing lady and in my opinion the greatest loss from that September.

I’d never heard the take that ERA would have gone away on its own- from how I’ve head it, the church can claim a “victory” there because it as largely responsible for the results.

Devyn, I agree, I could make the argument about Prop 8 being against doctrine as well on account of the importance of free will.

I’d say they are all mistakes. But the biggest mistake to me is not being willing to apologize for any of the above. (For pete’s sake, it’s been 155 years, would it kill us to claim some culpability for Mountain Meadows and issue a REAL apology?) We’ve programmed so many of our members (like bookslinger, it appears) into the mindset of “priesthood authorities CAN’T make mistakes”… it’s not a healthy or reasonable expectation, and leads some people to rather hard falls when a mistake becomes evident. For me, it was Brigham Young introducing questionable doctrine into the endowment ceremony- the lecture at the veil (and in some ways, the oath of vengeance) prove just how much a mortal man’s opinions, theories, and desires can sneak into “doctrine” (even if he is prophet). You can make excuses for pretty much every mistake you listed- but I have yet to hear a satisfactory excuse for the Lecture at the Veil other than BY was wrong (which is even FAIR’s stance: http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Adam-God_and_the_%22Lecture_at_the_Veil%22)
Is it so bad to admit our prophets can be fallible? After all, weren’t the OT prophets? Which is why it is so important that we can each confirm doctrine ourselves, through personal revelation.

Jenn – I would agree completely, there is not any willingness to apologize because it would mean that something was an error and we know the church leaders cannot make errors – amazing sometimes how this aura of infallibility is placed on mere mortals. For me, issuing an apology for the Blacks and the Priesthood would also go a long ways…

Specifically, the inability to apologize for the priesthood and temple ban, accompanied by the unwillingness to back our words (“won’t tolerate racism”) with action (firing BYU Religion professor Bott, for example–since he didn’t get fired, the church did indeed tolerate racism).

I disagree, however, on Jenn’s assessment of MMM–I think that’s been apologized for at the highest levels. Sure, it took us much longer to apologize than it should have, but real apologies have been offered within the last ten or twenty years, if not earlier.

Book: I think your responses show naivete in assuming inspiration to be more consistent than it really is. I believe in revelation and I believe leaders receive it, but they’re human and their actions are colored by their personal beliefs and bents. If you lived in southern Utah and watched the many unscrupulous unchristian businessmen chosen to leadership opinions, you might not be firm in your beliefs ie inspired callings and actions. That, for me, applies to all the caveats you cited. Especially blacks and the priesthood. No way was that an inspired policy. I will go to my grave proclaiming racism there.

I will also go to my grave proclaiming my testimony of the gospel. And that the insistence that our leaders are infallible has done a serious disservice to the church and its members.

#15, Jenn, the church has apologized. Publicly, loudly, over and over. I can’t remember the year, but President Hinckley, then an apostle and leaders of the Pauite tribe and survivors of the massacre came to Cedar City and there was an official apology and acceptance of said apology. I sang in the choir for it, an awesome experience.

I think it’s a bit unfair to attribute this action to Mormons en masse, since many didn’t even know about it let alone participate. My ancestors and others refused to participate. I’m a bit suspicious of Brigham Young and Porter Rockwell in this, but it’s true that President Young sent a message NOT to harm those people. I think it was the action of wing nuts who thought they were acting with the secret approval of the prophet, but that has yet to be proven. VERY hard to get people here to admit their ancestors participated; I tried to research it genealogically.

I would add the City Creek Mall. As a financial investment it may yield a tremendous return and may be a prudent business decision, though I have real questions about investing in a high end mall in a place like downtown SLC. The incongruity between having a couple of billion dollars extra cash for the Church’s use and the grinding poverty of many members throughout the world and the decision to plow that extra money into a fancy mall instead of something a little more modest or less conspicuous was a huge mistake. I’m not suggesting it all had to go to humanitarian needs but to get wrapped up in a luxury mall in the day of the internet was really poorly thought out or an act of hubris.

We are very active members and about a year and half ago we upped our fast offerings at the request of our bishop. At the time we were already paying more than the cost of two meals but he claimed the economy was taking its toll on the fast offering coffers and asked people to kick in more money so we upped or monthly amount to $200.00 for a family of 5 in southeastern PA. That is probably about half of what we spend for a week’s worth of groceries. Well, last Sunday our Bishop stood at the pulpit and made another plea for additional fast offerings. Before that damn Mall, my first instinct would have been to up the amount we pay, but now my first thought was about 1-2 billion dollars of extra cash which the Church plowed into a luxury mall and now we are begging for additional monies to help with the poor in Southeast PA. My second thought was for the Bishop to go to SLC for the extra money, since they have so much extra cash they can invest in a luxury mall. I suspect a lot of active members run a similar calculation in their heads when asked to contribute more money by Church leaders. That is why I think the mall was a tremendous mistake, even if it yields a significnat ROI (return on investment) for the coroporate Church.

As to number 10, I think it is hard to overlook how incestuous the callings were, and may still be. I am surprised at the close family connections through blood or marriage of the senior leaders of the Church. Was our talent pool really so thin and concentrated that the higher level leadership positions could only be filled by closely related family members? Over time this has begun to change, but the overlap between high level leadership positions and familial relations is more than a coincidence, imo.

rbc, I agree with you. Even in my own little stake, our bishop is the stake president’s son; that bishop’s executive secretary is his brother-in-law. The stake president’s son-in-law is bishop of another ward in our stake. All good worthy men, but it has provoked some comments. You see that everywhere here, and most of them are successful businessmen. I think that reflects, at least partly, our church’s organizational focus.

annegb: an inspired calling does not guarantee the quality of the callee. There just aren’t enough perfect men to go around. (Yes, “perfect men” is an oxymoron.) There aren’t even enough “good enough” men to go around.

I’ve had struggles with that in the past. “How could that be an inspired calling?” But I came up with some possible answers.

I imagine the Lord might at times say:
“There wasn’t anyone better available.”
“The better guys were already in more important callings, like youth leaders.”
“Yeah, he wasn’t perfect, but the reason I called him was for the areas he was good at.”
“He was the best choice for the majority of the people he was over.”
“He was the best choice for _certain_ people, who I wanted to have that kind of leader.”
“You guys didn’t deserve a better leader.”
“You guys didn’t need a better leader.”

Callings are like a big chess game, with the Lord putting people in certain places for strategic reasons that are not visible to us until much later, maybe not even until the next life.

At the GA level, that is not necessarily how it works. Maybe it was back in the days before the telephone and air travel. But for quite some time, the GA’s network with a very broad and deep group of people in the church. And the organization structure allows them to be aware of, survey, keep tabs on, and tap people from a broad area, and a couple levels removed.

Someone on the ‘nacle even mentioned a leadership resume database that is kept at church HQ, which the GA’s can use.

Using revelation in combination with that network, the Lord can bring any individual to the notice of the Brethren or the 70’s who are looking for someone to call.

I imagine one possible way is to just look down a list, reading the names until the Spirit says “that one.”

Supposing the individual the Lord wants called is not on a list, and not known personally to the GA (or GA’s) making the calling, the Lord can direct them to one of their known contacts who does know the person. And can do that through several iterations or degrees of separation.

At each level of contact, the caller could simply ask “who could you recommend?” and when the respondent eventually mentions the right name, the Lord can confirm that that’s the person to call, or to contact for further recommendations.

Or the caller might go down through the organizational chart, with the Lord directing which branches to follow. And if the callee is not on the chart, the Lord could indicate which person on the chart knows the callee.

Even for calling new stake presidents, I’ve heard stories about how a visiting GA will interview the current stake presidency, the high council, and all the bishops, asking for recommendations, and the GA would seek a spiritual confirmation on who to call as the new stake president. If he doesn’t get a confirmation, he asks for more names, or interviews more people.

Are there ‘best guess’ or ‘good enough’ or ‘no one better was available’ type callings? Yes, I would suppose so.

@27, I don’t think you could be more wrong about not enough good men to go around. There are plenty of good men to fill any number of leadership positions without a GA or SP dipping into the family gene pool. And, what about calling people who need to grow and the calling improves them? You are way off base there. By your standards, Joseph would never have been called, nor most of the original early Church leaders, going back to the Saviour’s time. That is nonsense on stilts, with all due respect to your devotion to the institution.

Personally, I find stepping into parental duties a major mistake–especially the current rhetoric on modesty. Though the damage can’t be measured yet, history tells us the more you regulate what is essentially free will the greater the harm. Most folks my age for example have major issues with their own sexuality since they’ve spent their entire lives denying it.

#30, rbc: Sorry, my response #27 was to annegb and was meant to address her lament about some unidentified local church leaders in her area.

Moreover, my comment #27 was not meant to criticize anyone in particular, either local or GA. Nor did my comment state that I thought everyone fell short. At most, I acknowledged that some leaders (such as the local ones annegb was referred to) don’t live up to all the members’ expectations. Most local leaders will admit that they don’t meet the needs of _all_ the members whom they serve, as in they can’t be everything to everybody.

I mentioned my own questions in the past, ‘I’ve had struggles with that in the past. “How could that be an inspired calling?”’, and then went on to address what I thought could be _possible_ answers in _some_ of those cases.

I’ve come to realize something too late in this thread. I think we’ve crossed into an area that Joseph Smith warned about:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156–57.)

I don’t think anyone in the thread has stated that they are righteous themselves, but we’ve crossed the line into finding fault with the Church. Oops.

Re: Mormon Meadows Massacre: note that I didn’t say just apologize, I said “claim culpability”. The only apologies I’ve seen have been along the lines of “We express profound regret for the massacre”. We’ve always made it clear that we’re sorry it happened, but it wasn’t our fault- it was only the fault of local leaders. Though I don’t think Brigham Young commanded the massacre, I absolutely think he is guilty of stirring up an atmosphere where such a thing could happen, by stirring up anti-government hatred regarding the Utah War and preaching concepts like blood-atonement and the oath of vengeance. Even after it happened, he publicly stated it was the vengeance of God (though he did flip-flop on it and later spoke against it). Where is the apology for that? There is so much the church could have done to prevent that mob mentality.

Book, I didn’t mean the callings were mistakes—the men I know of are mostly very good men and leaders. It was just an observation. And I wasn’t thinking so much about mistaken calls as your assumption that those who called don’t make mistakes. I take exception to your “fault finding” premise as well. Is the church without flaw? Are we sheep? Our leaders are NOT infallible and I did not abdicate my brain when I was baptized and confirmed.

It can be a fine line, I grant you, between calling out stupidity or disagreeing politically with leaders and open opposition. But Devyn’s list is pertinent and has nothing to do with his–or my testimony of Christ.

Jenn, what do you want, a pint of blood? Arthur Bishop, a Mormon Eagle Scout and returned missionary abducted and killed little boys. Should the church apologize? We don’t know that the church as an official organization had anything to do with the Mountain Meadow Massacre and I believe we’ve gone the extra mile. I haven’t gotten a personal apology from the governor of Missouri for Haun’s Mill. The priesthood Ban, now THAT’s what I want a pint of blood for!

i like what annegb said about mmm, that wingnuts thought they had the secret approval of the prophet. we saw this in our area with prop 8. people who surely thought they were acting within the prophet’s desires said horribly nasty things. they said it with such innocence and so publicly (like a high councilor saying from the pulpit that anyone not 100% for prop 8 should just leave the church because the church would be better off without them) that i really think they felt they had god’s blessing to say such things.

having experienced that, i can see how people involved in mmm might find something the prophet said, twist it, and think that they’re acting on his behalf.

25. rbc – I forgot all about the City Creek Mall. I agree about the reticence to give more to fast offerings while wathcing the Church dump money into the mall.

Bookslinger – Others have already pointed out flaws in your calling hypothesis. Having been in a bishopric and high council I can tell you not all callings are inspired and some are just plain mistakes. And at the GA level, there are a lot of good folks called as Mission Presidents from outside the US, but the GA callings tend to be limited to the white Utahns…

34. Bookslinger – this type of mentality is precisely why we never learn from mistakes in the Church and why we continue to be thought of as a cult. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a critical view of things – It is silliness to keep our heads in the sand and pretend all is well in Zion…

39 – Makakona – you have precisely laid out why we need to learn from these things. The folks in SLC need to realize that if you saw fight prop 8, nutjobs will do and say anything, no matter how unChristian to fight it.

I just read the Elder Spencer H. Osborn of teh 70 autobio, he was a Seventy from 1984-’89. He was saying either someone told him or at least he found out someway that the Brethren had 300 names selected to pick new seventies and they wittled it down to six and he was part of the six and he felt honored to even be in the group of 300. I can’t say if that is how it is all the time but it surprised me that the brethren had that many names of people they thought would make good GAs

For me it’s the fact that this mentality is then shared onto adulthood and pushed onto adults, which then turns into a “who’s showing shoulders, who’s the better parent” debates. The Strength of Youth is a guideline. Overemphasized to the point of being a rule rather than suggestion.

I should clarify! I wasn’t saying that it was suprising to me that 300 men would make good GAs as if I think so low of men in the Church but it surprised me that they had that high a number of people to consider and take to the Lord

Telling me I’ve got a Mother in Heaven there. As an infant and a toddler in the church, I didn’t think to ask if I had one where she was. Now I’ve grown up a bit, I want to know. What’s the story? Why is she absent in the gospel? It’s like my adopted son. We always told him he was adopted. So when he was old enough to go looking for them, he did. Found them both. Now where’s my Mother in Heaven?

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking here. While many are righteously indignant over what they perceive as a tendency of the Mormon masses to believe their prophets are infallible, they then are upset when they prove to be so. Shouldn’t they celebrate these “mistakes” as proof that the prophets are indeed fallible?

The central premise here, is that we are smarter or more enlightened than the Lord’s Servants. But even worse, the more tightly we hold these attitudes, the less the we are able to learn.

Bookslinger was more than right when he quoted the Prophet Joseph. Those who are critical of everything, but hold themselves as more enlightened, are setting themselves up for a fall.

One of the things that amazes me most, is that the scriptures tell us, that those priesthood holders who act in righteousness, the Lord will justify their words and they will be binding on earth and in heaven.

And if God will more than willing to roll with us mortals, I think we can do it as well.

I agree that it’s important to learn from our mistakes (although I don’t agree that everything listed in Devyn’s post was a mistake). But while we’re at it, I think it’s only fair that we highlight the “top 12” PR issues/decisions that the Church did get right. I tried to list them in order of importance and relevance. You might not agree, and some are general or rather obvious:

12. Abandoning settlements and all hopes of public redress by moving to the Utah region—Among other reasons, this allowed the LDS faith to take root, to flourish and, perhaps most importantly, to remain virtually unscathed from the devastation of the Civil War.

11. Humanitarian assistance at home and abroad—We have built a strong reputation for quick, reliable, and efficient responses to times of dire need.

10. Mormon Tabernacle Choir and “Music and the Spoken Word”—These entertainment arms of the Church have done as much to foster good-will among nations/peoples as anything I know.

9. Building a temple in East Germany—This got us a foothold into Europe’s Eastern Bloc, before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

8. “Raising the Bar” for qualification toward missionary service—This is more an internal policy, but it certainly reflects on public perception (even though there will always be some “weak/poor” missionaries).

7. Handling public oppositions to temples (such as Boston)—Opposition occurred on a number of occasions during the temple-building explosion era under Pres. Hinckley. I believe these were deftly/sensitively handled without deep wounds or scars (as much as can be expected).

6. Ignoring “The Book of Mormon” musical –Sometimes no response is the best response.

5. “I am a Mormon” campaign in selected cities and on LDS.org—I don’t know the outcome of these efforts but from many accounts they have been overwhelmingly positive.

4. Ending the priesthood ban in 1978—I infer from the article referenced above that the ban was lifted at exactly the right time under exactly the right prophet.

2. Issuing a non-proselytizing policy during the 2002 Winter Olympics—We are such a missionary-minded Church that public perception could have seriously plunged south. However, this unwritten policy under Pres. Hinckley was genius.

1. Pres. Hinckley’s interview with Mike Wallace of “60 Minutes”—This had disaster written all over it, but to everyone’s (well, maybe not everyone…) great relief, Pres. Hinckley’s personality shined through loud and clear as he became friends with the hard-nosed reporter. We were no longer perceived as a “closed-off” church.

I considered “ending polygamy” but that was too obvious (as opposed to the priesthood ban which is less apparent…).

Zen, you are wrong. The central premise here is an assessment of what the largest PR mistakes have been. Nobody’s claiming extraordinary enlightenment or revelation from God. Worst of all, if we refuse to subject ourselves to serious and honest self-examination, we are more likely to repeat similar mistakes in the future.

Nobody here is “critical of everything”. This is a post on the mistakes. Of course it’s critical, but it’s one post in a sea of thousands.

Please find me a reference for the notion that God justifies the mistakes his servants make, because I’d love to get out of those low moments in my mission when I did and said things that were inappropriate to the people I was serving.

Tiger, I like your list for the most part, except #4 ideally would’ve been “We never fell into the racism that overwhelmed the rest of the country.” And #3 is closer to a mistake than a success, IMO; although, I suppose it’s not the document per se that I have a problem with, rather, how it’s been wielded.

#1 Makes me miss Hinckley. Pres. Monson has’t done a single interview since the day he became president, and I think it would be nice to be able to have someone with Hinckley’s media savvy around, particularly during this “Mormon moment”.

I certainly do not view many of the items you posted as mistakes especially Prop 8 and the ERA fight. Those things were directly inspired and led by the prophet and the quorum of the twelve. If we truly believe they are called of God, then we will know not to complain about their inspired decisions. Of course, it may be that these like Zion’s Camp or The Kirtland Safety Society may be undermined by the pettiness and lack of faith on the part of members. Still, the prophet reveals God’s will even when the people eventually fall short.

Bookslinger, I think you’re way overboard in backing the bretheren at all costs on this thread. Mistakes do happen, as Joseph himself was careful to always admit. That quote you pulled from JS doesn’t mean all criticism of the church is wrong. The thing Joseph was talking about is someone who condemns the church while proclaiming himself as more righteous or worthy than the church leaders. No one is doing that here, so that quote doesn’t apply.

My list:

1. Prop 8 – No question it was a mistake, as the Church has tacitly admitted by not engaging in the same fight elsewhere when the same issuer was on the ballot. This is a fight the Church has lost and probably should never have been involved in.

2. Fight Against Prohibition – Are you saying that the members of the Church should have voted to keep prohibition??? Or that it was a mistake for Church leadership to tell them to keep it?

3. ERA – I don’t think the Church’s opposition made any difference.

4. Blacks and the Priesthood – A big mistake, which I attribute mostly to BY but it was another (possibly worse) mistake when leaders started speculating about it and coming up with their own folk doctrine to support the ban.

5. September Seven – Probably a mistake. I think Bookslinger’s comments are completely out of line on this issue.

6. Mormon Doctrine – I’m not sure this was a mistake by the Church leadership, since many, including the prophet, opposed it at the time. It was certainly a mistake for McConkie to title the book as he did, and some of the entries were clearly erroneous in retrospect, as I’m sure McConkie himself would admit.

7. Polygamy – This is certainly doctrinal. I don’t know if we can label it a mistake when it’s still a part of our doctrine that men may be sealed to more than one woman.

8. Recommending that women NOT serve missions – Not a big issue in my opinion.

9. Mountain Meadows – A terrible, tragic mistake by some. I’m not of the opinion that Church leadership is responsible for it. Even a prophet may be guilty of all kinds of intemperate language, but someone who commits a murder is still responsible for their own actions.

10. Relentless calling of “White Western Americans” into Church leadership posiitons – I think this is less of a problem as we go along, and I think it’s a “you call who you know” problem as much as anything. It will continue to resolve itself over time. I wish the brethren would be more aggressive about calling people from different backgrounds, but I mostly don’t question callings at the GA level.

Those who are calling the mall a mistake: Do you know the whole story? Do you know what was there before? It was already a mall. Two actually. And they were falling into disrepair. The property had to be redeveloped no matter what. The city wanted a downtown mall and had prohibited larger stores from going to the Gateway in order to protect the downtown area, specifically this property. The church agreed to redevelop the area as retail space partly at the urging of the city and other surrounding property owners. It couldn’t be allowed to become a blighted area. It couldn’t stay as it was. The city wanted a mall. The surroounding property owners wanted a mall. The retailers like Nordstrom wanted to reopen in that space. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to see how what the Church did could possibly be construed as a mistake. Calling it a “luxury mall” is clearly idiotic. It’s an outdoor mall. Very comperable to Gateway and others being built all over the country. It’s nioce but no nicer than most, certainly not “luxury.” It’s actually smaller than Gateway. The stores are very normal like The Gap. What’s luxurious about The Gap? The restaurants are very normal. there’s a McDonalds in the foodcourt. How is that a “luxury mall”? Answer: it’s not. It’s a nice, but very normal little mall.

Tiger, that article about the priesthood ban is good but there are problems. Like it starts off with this clinker:

“Church policy related only to priesthood, not to personal worth”

Seriously? Is Ed Kimball actually trying to suggest that there is no logical connection between the two? I guess African Americans must have been idiots to take it as an insult to their worth to the church and their status with God that they were not allowed to be ordained or receive the endowment.

I should have been more specific, that this scriptural promise is for the prophet, though my personal testimony is, that the Lord extends this to us as well. As you mentioned, Trevor, we all have done dumb things on our missions. It must be true, that if the Church wasn’t true, the missionaries would have destroyed it.

Still, the verses you asked
“whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” D&C 1:38

“Behold my Spirit is upon you, wherefore all thy words will I justify” Moses 6:34

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” D&C 21:5, see also v. 4-6

“Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me, and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit sin, and I will justify him.” D&C 132:59

And related to the topic at hand,
” For I will send my servant unto you who are blind; yea, a messenger to open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the ears of the deaf;
And they shall be made perfect notwithstanding their blindness, if they will hearken unto the messenger, the Lord’s servant.” JST Isaiah 42:19-20

In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.

And also:

Joseph Fielding Smith, in the Philippines to dedicate the land for proselyting, observed native peoples who appeared Negroid. Despite this he said, in the dedicatory prayer, “I bless the native inhabitants both black and white with the blessings of the gospel and the Priesthood—Amen.” When asked about it then, he responded, upset, “That is what the Lord required me to do.”

These entries show a strong possibilty of evidence, long before 1978, that the ban was not being continued by instruction from God.

This is maybe the best statement by anyone concerning the reason why the revelation regarding the priesthood ban was not received earlier:

Revelations will probably never come unless they are desired. I think few people receive revelations while lounging on the couch or while playing cards or while relaxing. I believe most revelations would come when a man is on his tip toes, reaching as high as he can for something which he knows he needs, and then there bursts upon him the answer to his problems.

It comes from a letter SWK wrote to Ed Kimball in 1963. It may be that a revelation was never necessary in the first place, as Hugh B. Brown suggested. But it also may be that we, as a people and our leaders, just didn’t want it badly enough.

Tiger, I have now read the entirety of the Ed Kimball article you linked, including the footnotes, and I can state unequivocally that there is nothing in that article that contradicts the idea that the ban was a complete mistake. The article is not about the ban itself as much as the lifting of the ban. The fact that the ban was lifted by revelation to SWK and the twelve does not in any way preclude the fact that it should never have been in place to begin with.

Yes it a nice little mall with 470-ft-long retractable skylight providing a glitzy home to Brooks Brothers, Michael Kors, Tiffany & Co and Porsche Design. Gateway mall built in 2001 is less than a mile away. Both Nordstrom and Macy’s were already available at the newly renovated Fashion Place mall about 10 miles away. City Creek mall is too small to be considered a destination mall (if there is such a thing) so it will compete for the same Wasatch Front retail business as the other malls without creating any significant number of new jobs except the temporary construction jobs that were necessary to build it. This project was completely unnecessary. It is a large and spacious building, a temple to lustful spending. It serves no functional need except to satisfy hubris. It is build in the face of many third world deaths due to malnutrition, thirst and easily curable deaths! Btw, according to the Liahona Childrens Foundation about 900 LDS children die from malnutrition each year!

49. Yet Another John – can you explain as I am a bit confused by your comment. Those of us who are “indignant over what they perceive as a tendency of the Mormon masses to believe their prophets are infallible, they then are upset when they prove to be so.” Not sure anyone is in this category – seems most folks here either think the prophets are infallible and make mistakes or think they are infallibe and chafe as what is discussed here.

50. Tiger – I think what was intended on the Women and missions was not what happened – same with many other things discussed here. The prophet says women are not required to go on a mission, then zealots take that to mean they shouldn’t be on missions altogether. There are a lot of stories about the negative impacts of this talk. I think your rationale for Blacks and the Priesthood has been suitable blown up by others.

52. Tiger – thanks for putting your list together. I like the list overall, but don’t think the Priesthood ban ending in 1978 is one to be proud of (it was way too late). I tend to think the Proclamation on the Family is a non-issue – I don’t think it really says anything new or groundbreaking.

Well, Howard, despite your opinion, it is obvious that some project was necessary because the space could not have stayed as it was. If renovation was necessary, and the city and retailers all wanted a mall, what is your proposal that should have been built instead? A new welfare square? Not zoned for it. A mall or housing or office space were the only viable choices. The Church ended up doing a mix of all three. Sorry you think that was unnecessary but it does obviously serve a functional need, as the retailers appear to be successful and the office and housing space is getting filled.

I agree the area needed a facelift. A park would have been nice. Given the church’s influence on Salt Lake politics I doubt zoning restrictions would have been insurmountable. Building a glitzy high end mall is incongruent with the gospel even though it’s (ironically) closed on Sundays! How pharisaical is that! If they didn’t have a more important place to park the money saving lives would have been nice idea!

Years ago, Salt Lake City planners said that they best thing to enliven downtown was to reduce skyscrapers and the malls and replace with buildings 4-6-8 stories with restaurants and shops on the ground level, offices above and housing on top. The idea was to create more walkable space with a more lively environment.

I don’t think people care about the history of downtown SLC and urban blight, such as it is, in downtown SLC or the looming threat of some kind of “blight”in downtown SLC. And the machinations between SLC city fathers and developers about what goes where is really besides the point and is pointless anyway to a vast majority of Saints the world over. There are many, many Saints who live in blighted conditions and occasionally, or often, the Church is a lifeline to another month’s rent, food, electricity or some other pressing need. When those needs are reduced to a monetary amount, the monetary portion comes from donations-often at a sacrifice-from individual members of the Church. When members learn the Church has 1-2 billion! in extra cash/reserves at its disposal, that fact alone is eye popping and an impressive testament to the way the Church runs its businesses. But, when the Church in a very public way plows that EXTRA/SURPLUS cash into a mall anywhere at the same time members are asked to donate more to help the poor and needy, the contradiction is jarring and causes consternation, even among loyal members.

Who cares where the mall was built and whether or not it is a luxury mall. The issue is whether it was a smart move to do something like where the disparity really could not be more stark. Bad move on the part of the Church. There are many ways to park, invest 1-2 billion dollars in ways that were less conspicuous than a flashy mall in downtown SLC. Beyond the PR disaster it has become, it also reeks of provincialism at least from the vantage point of tithe paying members who are not close to SLC.

Spare me the boring details about no tithing money etc… The money used was controlled by the Church and could have easily been redirected in a more discrete, humble way.

Obviously, big financial reward is not the church’s primary concern, but the return on investment they will get will not be nothing. Anything you put there would be “illiquid” but at least with retail space there’s some profits to be made, unlike a park or a library. neither of which is actually a feasible solution for that space.

Building a glitzy high end mall is incongruent with the gospel even though it’s (ironically) closed on Sundays! How pharisaical is that!

This comment is a mystery to me. How could it possibly be incongruent with the gospel? What gospel are you talking about? None I know of prohibits nice malls or retail business ventures. Pharasaical? To close on Sunday? How so? You must be involved with some pharisees I have never heard of.

MCQ, that letter from SWK to his son is great! I’m reminded of a teaching that I heard frequently in the years leading up to my mission; it went something like, “If you seek personal revelation regarding an decision you are considering, and fail to obtain an answer, but the Lord has already spoken on the matter, it’s probably safe to assume God has already spoken his mind to you as well.” Typically, the context was whether a young man should serve a mission. Ideally, he should seek personal spiritual confirmation about the decision, but if silence was the result, he should remember that prophets had already counseled all young men to serve.

RE: the priesthood ban, God had already stated unambiguously that *all* his children were equal, so I wonder if the revelatory silence that DOM and others experienced simply meant that God felt they already knew what they should be doing…

A couple of points here: First, we need to distinguish between what is unpopular and what are mistakes. I think we all understand and agree that unpopular decisions/policies do not constitute mistakes, regardless of public backlash, negative perceptions, or perceived unfairness/biases, etc, from/toward a church that concerns itself with moral principles, and not popularity.

Second, I am VERY uncomfortable with calling the priesthood ban on Blacks a “mistake.” Here’s why… There is a precedent, you know, found in Acts 10. Under Christ’s direction, the gospel was withheld (or banned, we might say) from the Gentiles (even though a few Gentiles had demonstrated faithfulness). While Peter was praying, the Lord, provided a vision, rich in metaphor, that the gospel could now be extended to them. Evidently, Peter’s reservations were such that the vision had to be repeated thrice. Thus, when the time was right, the Lord WENT TO Peter, not the other way around.

With that precedent in mind, if the Lord wanted to, He could have enlightened any of his spokesmen in this dispensation prior to S.W. Kimball, many of whom, in fact, were seeking to know His will on the issue. (They puzzled and puzzled till their puzzlers were sore…!) As His spokesman, the prophet’s silence is also the Lord’s silence and his decrees are also the Lord’s decrees. To say the ban should have been lifted many years earlier or that it was lifted too late is counseling the Lord. Think about it… Or to suggest that the prophets & apostles prior to SWK were not spiritually sensitive enough is ludicrous. It had nothing to do with men not seeking (enough) to know His will, nor the qualifications of Blacks (for God is no respecter of persons), and everything to do with the Lord’s PERFECT timing. I don’t presume to understand it; I don’t. All I really know is that in on that particular day in 1978, thirteen authorized servants KNEW absolutely the will of the Lord regarding this crucial, worldwide policy. That’s good enough for me. Certainly, it was/is not popular, but a mistake? Not!

Tiger – you are splitting hairs. How would you define a mistake then? I think there are a lot of divergent views on Blacks and the Priesthood and you have clearly only listened to the official story without reading into the history on this.

Tiger, you admit you have no idea what the Lord’s will on this issue was prior to 1978, then you categorically claim it was not a mistake. That is a complete inconsistency and can only be the result of irrational prejudice on your part.

I on the other hand, do have many reasons for saying the ban was a mistake, most of which are articulated in the article bt Ed Kimball, which you linked, but clearly didn’t bother to read. The bottom line is that there was never any evidence whatsoever of any scriptural or revelatory basis for the ban. None whatsoever. Yet It flies in the face of many scriptural proclamations:

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ball to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

2 Ne 26:33

You give an example from Acts 10 which is clearly inapposite. In that passage, the Lord was commanding missionaries to go to the gentiles to preach the gospel for the first time. That is analogous to the Church opening a new mission in China. It’s not analogous to the priesthood (not the gospel, see the difference?) being withheld from a race of people based solely on ancestry. One decision is based on commitment of organizational resorces, the other is based on racist ideas about parentage gleaned from a misinterpretation of scripture.

You can continue to hang onto your antiquated, discredited and empty ideas about God’s perfect timing if you want. The fact is that the ban originated in racism and was continued because of inertia and disinterest. You say that many prophets were seeking to know the Lord’s will on this issue, but I don’t see evidence of that and you don’t have any either. Hugh B. Brown was right all along. The Lord didn’t speak because we should have known without him speaking. We didn’t need a revelation, we just needed action. If you read Ed Kimball’s article, you will see that the revelatory confirmation came only after SWK had already made up his mind what the proper course was. If earlier prophets had done that, the “perfect timing” could have been perfect that much earlier.

I am not counseling the Lord on this, he has already spoken. I am just reading his words and using my God-given brain, which is exacly what Lester Bush and others did in studying and publishing their articles on the origin of the ban, which gave rise to the questioning and prayers that SWK engaged in to finally end this racist policy. Not a mistake? I don’t know how you can say that with a straight face. You would have to believe that the prophets never make mistakes, and we know from the prophets themselves that is not the case.

Devyn, I’m not sure if we can agree on this because it appears we’re approaching it differently, but I’m curious how you can say that polygamy is not doctrinal when we still have the doctrine in our scriptures and practice it in our temples. If you’re talking only about the practice of polygamous marriages in mortality, then by saying it’s a mistake you would have to disregard or set aside several revelations on the subject that JS claimed to have had. The preisthood ban had no such scripture or revelations at its beginning, but polygamy did. How then can you put them in the same category?

MCQ – good response on the Priesthood question. Now for Polygamy… We are approaching this differently and likely won’t agree. I realize it is spoken of in the scriptures (albeit a bit squishy in the D&C regarding practice in mortality). I am only speaking of polygamy in mortality (won’t pretent to know what happens after that). I think that the reading of various articles/books on the subject have pretty much convinced me that it was a mistake that used Old Testament views to justify it. I really cannot believe that it was ever sanctioned by the Lord, but that it was another failed experiment of the early Saints. I realize this is not a typical view, but it works for me on this particular topic.

MCQ wrote: The part you’re missing, Howard, is the part where he said IF. No I didn’t miss the word “if”, I was responding to 68. Well MCQ, I very strongly doubt Jesus would countenance a glitzy bricks and mortar idol over human lives. Apparently you subscribe to a prosperity gospel.

Until any of those who are advocating that the church has made mistakes in the areas mentioned can come up with a revelation that the leadership indeed erred, and have the Lord remove that leadership from their positions to be replace by the ones calling for the church to come clean …………

For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful aservant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an ahard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The Church is doing the work of the Lord by seeking profits with the money entrusted to it. Profits are clearly not the primary goal, but they are one worthwhile goal, and one that is not inconsistent with the gospel as taught by Jesus.

Does this make it a prosperity gospel? Hardly. The goal with City Creek mall was simply to find the best use of property that is adjacent to Temple Square and had to be renovated anyway. In working with the city and retailers in the area, the Church came up with a solution that benefitted everyone and gave the church an opportunity to receive some income from the property. That is simply called being a good and faithful servant.

MCQ wrote: The Church is doing the work of the Lord by seeking profits with the money entrusted to it…That is simply called being a good and faithful servant. Okay, I’ll let the dying know. Christ will be proud!

Howard, the dichotomy you’re presenting between the dying and a mall is not only false, it’s assinine. The church can and must do both. It has many businesses and properties that it must run responsibly. There is never a choice between helping people and developing property. Both happen every day. To suggest otherwise just makes you look like a dumbass.

MCQ wrote: …assinine. The church can and must do both…dumbass. They are not doing both! It’s a magnitude issue, they are just throwing a bone to the dying while building away! According to Reuters the church owns $35 billion worth of temples and meeting houses around the world, brings in about about $7 billion a year from tithing while spending about 3/4% of that on disaster relief and humanitarian aid! So they are doing quite well in bricks and mortar while providing only token aid to those dying of malnutrition, thirst and easily curable disease. This is prosperity gospel rationalization and thinking. The Liahona Childrens Foundation says about 900 LDS MEMBER children die from malnutrition each year! How many lives could have been saved with the choice of a park instead of a mall? What would Christ say? That I’m an assinine dumbass? I doubt it!

83 – Glenn – your response is precisely why we are considered a cult – we blindly believe and follow anything a leader says…

MCQ and Howard – I tend to think you two are talking past each other. Personally, I agree with both of you. Downtown SLC risked being blighted which is not a good thing for the Church and some investment there was needed and will benefit the surrounding neighborhoods (now was it too much, who knows). However, Howard is right that the amount we spend on humanitarian efforts is embarassing low. I would rather we stop building such expensive buildings and send some of that to Humanitarian efforts.

Ane – the church gives somewhere around $100M a year in cash and goods to Humanitarian aid. While this sounds like a lot, it is a drop in the bucket to total funds brought in, which is why folks are concerned about it. It is very sad to think we actually have members of our Church dying from malnutrition in parts of the world…

First, I would never say that the church should not spend more money on humanitarian aid. I would love to see that happen. all I am objecting to is the idea that you can’t redevelop property in downtown SLC while someone, somewhere could be dying. That’s idiotic. You have to do both things, and the church does. Could it do more humanitarian aid? Yes, and it should, but that doesn’t mean you don’t do your best to make the property adjacent to temple square a nice place to visit. And it was never possible to make it into a park. The city would never have just allowed a park on main street. That wasn’t an option.

annegb, I am not related to DMQ that I know of, but I do have a lot of respect for him.

The church didn’t have to redo the downtown area, but to leave it as it was would have been deplorable because it was right across the street from temple square. The church owns most of that property. So to have it sit idle or look terrible was not something anyone wanted to see happen.

Well, surely we all remember in Mark 10 when the young rich man asked Jesus what he must do to get into the kingdom of heaven and Jesus replied “invest all that thou hast, that thou may have more to eventually do good with”. Oh wait, that never happened.
“Sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.”
A Christ-centered church should never have gotten to the point where we had billions to invest to begin with. Staying in the black is a great thing, a worthy goal. But profit and dividends should never be a focus of our efforts.

Anne – the Church owns a tremendous amount of property, for profit businesses, etc. You can find all sorts of data available on line around this. Yes, the Church has billions – some estimate worth of $35billion or so

Bit of threadjack with respect to the polygamy issue pointed out by MCQ: Handbook of Instruction 2 (Nov/2010) says something that we’ve all heard:

“2.1.2 Ordinances…..Deceased person may receive them (saving ordinances such as baptism, confirmation, PH for men, endowment, and sealing) vicariously. Vicarious ordinances become effective only when the deceased persons for whom the ordinances were performed accept them in the spirit world and honor the related covenants.”

I’m not quite sure how people can honor a sealing covenant in the spirit world. I would think if you’re living in such a way as to merit the Celestial Kingdom while in the spirit world, it won’t be a problem to honor the covenant of marriage. I kind of wonder what first spouses think when a spouse arrives in the spirit world with a second spouse in tow, and within a celestial blink of the eye, said spouse is sealed to a second spouse and “accepts” the ordinance. Then what? At any rate, we have temple sealing policies that a allow a living man to be sealed to more than one woman. Clearly, when a man does this, he is saying “ I want to be married to these two women for eternity.” And any second (or third and so forth) wife marrying a previously sealed man is presumably accepting the first deceased wife as part of the marital family. Query: Does the first wife have any say in the spirit world whether she wants to be married to a man who has chosen to marry other wives? Then we move on to women who remarry. Church sealing policy since 1998 says we’ll seal her to all her husbands after she dies. Is there any reason for us to believe she and those husbands wouldn’t accept the sealing ordinances done on their behalf? I doubt it seriously. It’s pretty hard for me to imagine a remarried couple telling each other: We’re just in this til death do us part. After we die, we don’t want to be with one another for eternity. I haven’t had one person comment that they don’t want to be with second spouse for eternity. So, the question comes up again. Will a first spouse want to be married to someone who has chosen to marry other spouses? Can someone righteously decline an ordinance? Will it be a righteous exercise of our agency to look at our spouse and not want to be in a plural marriage type of relationship? Or, as I predict, will it be a case of plural sealings across the board such that deceased spouses are busy finding other spouses in the spirit world, even as we mourn and grieve for them in mortality? Or, based on the statistically low number of people who remarry after the death of a spouse, does it mean only a relatively select few people (about 5% – 10%) will be in plural marriage situations in the afterlife? Anyway, like MCQ, I think the plural sealing stuff is still doctrinal. I just don’t understand the church’s full position on it.

Well, although I don’t plan on the Celestial Kingdom, I think when we die and go to the Spirit World, those of us who are worthy (and they WON’T all be Mormons!), will be surrounded by a love that we cannot imagine and we’ll feel differently. It’ll be like getting Demarol and Valium at the same time only better. So nobody will care about the other wife. Theoretically. Not that I’m participating.

I like that “theoretically” part. That’s what makes this topic intriguing! Since we carry into the spirit world the same attitudes we had in mortality, I don’t know if there will be so much willingness to accept other spouses or not. Like you, I think there will be plenty of “non-mormons” there. Otherwise we wouldn’t be doing all this proxy work in the temple. But, if we do their proxy work, I guess they will be technically “Mormons” at some point, anyway. Keep your hopes up about the CK. My impression is that as long as we’re sincerely striving towards it, we’ll make it.

Who says a spouse in the spirit world will wait around for the one left behind in mortality? If the spouse in mortality can date and connect with someone else, why can’t the spouse in the spirit world do the same? In the spirit world there is still agency, difference in the sexes, desires, emotional connections etc. It seems to me completely plausible that a spouse which has passed on will have an opportunity to form a new relationship with a member of the opposite sex and perhaps even a much better relationship than the one left behind in mortality. If a widow can reconnect with an old flame after a spouse passes on, why can’t a spouse in the spirit world do the same with someone in the spirit world?

It has struck me as strange since we believe in eternal marriage and death is simply a door we go through on our eternal journey that a surviving spouse may date and even marry when the surviving spouse is, in fact, still married and the other spouse is simply out of town for a brief period of time. (when measured against eternity, the temporary separation when one spouse dies before the other is but a moment.) For those who are sealed, there will be a reunion with a sealed spouse and it won’t be too long before the reunion happens. So why are surviving spouses allowed to date and even remarry when they are already married and the other spouse is only out of the picture for a brief moment? If the dead spouse can also date in the spirit world then it only seems fair that the spouse left behind can hedge his/her bets and do the same. After all, if my wife dies before me she won’t have to look around too hard to find a suitable replacement for me in the spirit world!

Devin writes an uninspired article then uses the supposition that he was in positions of authority and made uninspired decisions as evidence for the fact that his post is correct. I largely agree with bookslinger.

In general you’ve not really understood the Lord or his servants in relation to these matters so it’s not surprising to see you get it wrong. What’s sad is that you want to publicize and seek support for your erroneous analysis in the process of undermining authority.

rbc – it is interesting to speculate, and your theory of a lot of horsetrading of spouses certainly would complicate things, albeit logical. I am guessing that the whole substance of the afterlife is pretty difficult for our brains to understand.

rbc – finally – someone who’s thought this through the same way I have! I read in an Ensign article once about a stake president who had remarried. As he struggled through the guilt of deciding to remarry, he finally said to himself: We’ll all be single again, either on this side of the veil or the other. She’ll have to take care of herself in the spirit world the same way I need to take care of myself while I’m still in mortality. Like you, it struck me that if we believe people will have a chance to hook up and marry (sealed during the millenium), it only stands to reason there will be a whole lot more relationship forming in the spirit world. I just wish there was more formal revelation on the issue.

MCQ #79, After your dismissive thread, I decided to re-read the article I linked (but read months ago) and Lester’s paper and other references. Having greatly broadened my horizons, I can better understand why some would call it a mistake, and I wouldn’t fault them for that. If I had brushed up on these readings earlier, I would have toned down my rhetoric quite a bit. I admit I spoke too soon and though your tone was condescending and sneering (really, I expected better from you, MCQ), I probably deserved it. :) In any case, my following points:

1. Your words: ‘If earlier prophets had done that, the “perfect timing” could have been perfect that much earlier.’

You and I don’t know that. It’s easy to point your finger and say this could have been perfect and different when…..

Before SWK, the ban existed through the administration of 10 prophets (beginning with BY). Were all of them perpetuating this “mistake” through racist attitudes, indifference, and/or misinterpreting scripture? I don’t know, but it is clear that views evolved especially in the mid-20th century, but more on that later…. Could not the Lord have addressed this “mistake” to any of the 10 prophets? Well, He didn’t.

2. In referring to Acts 10, my primary point was that the Lord can and does intervene. True it is most revelations come in answer to prayer, but that doesn’t preclude the Lord from direct intervention. The scriptures and church history points to many examples of this (Saul’s journey to Damascus, the Liahona, manna for the Israelites, etc. etc.). You cited 2 Nephi 26:33 as proof the Lord had already spoken on equality and doubtless, all the presidents were well acquainted with this verse. To me, basing your argument on one verse is too simplistic (though you say you have other reasons).

For instance, Christ proclaimed, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them…” (Matt 28:19). They didn’t have a Bible then, but the Apostles heard it and knew about it. But what did that change? Nothing. Peter, as well as his brethren, adhered to the earlier directive that only the Jews, because they were the covenant people, could have the gospel. The Lord had already spoken, but apparently new revelation was needed to spur them to action (Acts 10). This is nothing new; the Lord has repeated/re-emphasized his commands on a number of occasions. The timing of Peter’s vision was exact, in preparation of Cornelius’s conversion. However, the vision also required a resolution to other theological and social problems, such as circumcision, which gives us a small glimpse to the complexity of their issues.

As Americans, we hold firm that all men are created equal, but that abstract ideal during our first two centuries had horrific applications and was hypocrisy at its finest. Although racism was clearly rampant and impacted nearly every facet of American culture/society, citizens then didn’t toss allegations of “racism” like grenades as easily as we do today. Attitudinally and psychosocially, we have come a long way since 1840, since 1900, and since 1960. Members of the church are no different in their need for evolutionary thinking.

I tend to give our prophets the benefit of the doubt. We can judge/misjudge statements they made (and many were racist), but I won’t judge them because they were products of an era we never experienced; I was never in their shoes and couldn’t comprehend what they knew and felt. Like Peter, they were prayerful men, and I’d like to think they prayed, as did Enos for his Lamanite brethren, that if the priesthood couldn’t be made available to all races now, then one day it would be.

“Inertia and disinterest”? I saw no clear evidence of that. Which leads me to my next point.

2. You are wrong that I don’t have any evidence of prophets seeking to know the Lord’s will. Citing excerpts from Lengthen Your Stride, Mormonheretic.org reports:

‘It is worthy to note that President McKay did pray to have the ban removed several times. Edward Kimball states that McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that “he had pleaded with the Lord but had not had the answer he sought.” Leonard Arrington reported a statement by Elder Adam S. Bennion in 1954 that President McKay had prayed for change “without result and finally concluded the time was not yet ripe.”’

And that:
President Kimball felt that his predecessors had sought the Lord’s will concerning the priesthood policy, and for whatever reason “the time had not yet come.”

I only cited two prophets, but the text adds that prior to 1978, SWK received no immediate answers to his prayers regarding the priesthood ban. Which leads me to believe the timing of the 1978 revelation was exact.

3. I never said that prophets do not make mistakes. Discrimination and racist attitudes (even slavery) definitely were practiced in Utah whilst numbers of Blacks resided there, and perhaps some prophets and apostles were not above those. I’ll leave it at that.

4. Let’s say you’re right, that it was a mistake, but if we agree the Lord can and does intervene in the affairs of His kingdom (and who are we to dictate what He can’t do?), then the only “antiquated” conclusion I can make with my God-given brain was that it wasn’t significant enough nor was He in any hurry to ensure extending those priesthood blessings to all worthy men. No, the answer has to be far more complex. More than mere discrimination, indifference, or misinterpretation.

I think the Lord was silent because he wanted us to hash out the problems on our own. From 1850 on, new secular ideologies would arise pertaining to darwinian principles; eugenics; race relations; imperialism; ethical dilemmas with regards to science, technology, & sociology; globalization; understanding true equality; the rights of minorities; and so on and so on. That’s why I say I don’t understand it, any more than you, or anyone else, does. We can’t see completely the bigger picture. In the process, humanity, particularly minorities, suffered immeasurably. Thankfully, however, our understanding progressed to the point where, I believe, the Lord saw fit to intervene and SWK was the prophet destined to end the priesthood ban.

So were our earlier prophets racist? With our current knowledge and understanding–absolutely. Did they make mistakes? No question. I think they genuinely did their best with the limited knowledge they had–warts and all–as they grappled with the scriptures they already had in front of them.

It’s intriguing to debate the issue and I welcome criticisms to my points which obviously need a lot more development. Mistake or not, I’m tempted to say it’s water under the bridge, but clearly that is not the case. Despite the weaknesses of men, I take comfort in knowing the Lord’s work has never been, nor will ever be, frustrated (D& C 3:3).

@111, I haven’t really thought this through at all, except for what I wrote. As to the SP in the Ensign article, he sounds like a shallow, insecure man. What in the world is so wrong or unacceptable about being alone for a few years or even decades before reuniting with the woman/man to whom you made a committment? It seems death acts as a general release of marital obligations, and perhaps it does. I don’t know. If it does, it seems completely at odds with the committment to absolute fidelity we make in the temple and which gets hammered home in Church ad nauseum in prosaic and stupid ways. (for example the dopey hypothetical of the Bishop who is driving alone and won’t stop to pick up the RS president walking in the rain b/c they would-shockingly-be alone in the car. The horror!) If a spouse is in an accident or suffers from a lingering illness which renders the spouse incapable of doing anything to meaningfully contribute to a relationship, the healthy spouse isn’t released from marital obligations to get his or her “needs” fulfilled or to fill the loneliness. It really doesn’t follow.

You identified the person in the Ensign article as a SP, but I don’t know why that fact has anything to do with the issue. SPs are no different than anyone else who has lost a spouse and is trying get on with a life that has been radically changed. Who cares if it was a SP or RS president or whatever. We’re talking about human beings who made commitments to each other and had those committments solemnized in a temple. I could really care less what someone thinks or feels just b/c he is a SP.

Tiger, thanks for your thoughtful response. If my #79 was condescending and sneering, then I apologize deeply. That was not my intent, though as I re-read it I agree the tone was a bit obnoxious, to say the least. I guess this issue is a bit of a hot button for me, and I also admit to being a bit peeved by your #75.

But did you not read my #59 and #60? Or Trevor’s #74? I think those comments capture the difference in the way you and I are looking at this issue.

You seem to assume that if the priesthood ban (or any policy or practice of the church I guess) was a mistake, then the Lord knew exactly how to get it changed and would have done so by speaking to his prophet, as he finally did in 1978. The fact that he did it then and didn’t do so earlier is proof in your mind that he had a certain time in mind to end the ban and would not act earlier, thus giving rise to the idea that the ban was his plan all along and needed to be in place until 1978 for some divine reason that we have not been told.

But that’s not what happened is it?

We are told specifically by Ed Kimball, giving us the information he received from SWK and others who were present, that the Lord did not speak directly to SWK that the ban should be lifted. He didn’t say that at all. What happened is exactly the opposite: SWK decided to lift the ban first and then prayed for confirmation that this was what the Lord wanted. That is something that no other prophet before had been willing to do, but my firm belief is that, if they had done so, they would have received the same answer.

There is no way that we can know this for certain (except maybe through personal revelation which I am only too willing to admit I have neither asked for nor received) but I think the great weight of evidence is on the side of my belief. Given the fact that the ban is emphatically not the result of revelation in the first place, and given the evidence I described in #59, and the scriptural support for the idea that God is no respecter of persons and treats all men equally, I think it’s fair to conclude that the ban was the mistake of men who, though well-meaning, allowed their personal biases to creep into the work of the Lord.

As the Kimball article states, there wasn’t much reason to even think much about the ban until nearly the mid 20th century, so the prophets prior to McKay can perhaps be excused from questioning it. McKay did question it, and maybe even came close to changing it, but in the end didn’t do it because he didn’t have the insight (or in his later years, the energy) to go about it the way SWK did. Therefore, he didn’t get the same response from the Lord.

I think the Lord doesn’t necessarily intervene with men directly, sua sponte, very often. He wants us to act on our own and fix our own scewups for the most part. The examples of Saul and Alma the younger are very rare indeed, and can perhaps be explained by the faith and prayers of others overcoming the Lord’s usual laissez-faire policy.

rbc@113 I’ve gone through the same discussions in my head as you. Whether you’re married (sealed) for one day or 50 years, how does the death of a spouse relieve you of the obligation to be faithful (See latest Celestial Marriage Coursebook.) So, the real question then becomes: Why do we allow, even encourage, people to to remarry upon the death of a spouse? Sure, death is a deal breaker according to the laws of the land. However, it is not a deal breaker for a sealing. The only conclusion I’ve come to is that our doctrine is that of plural marriage. We practice serial monogamy in mortality, but we seem to be okay with plurality in perpetuity. I don’t get it, either. That’s why I wondered if ultimately, we’ll be plural across the board, or if we’ll be monogamous, and eventually we’ll all have to “choose” one and only one. At any rate, I can’t judge anyone on their decision to remarry after the death of a spouse. I haven’t been there and haven’t done that. That’s a very personal, private decision. I just wish there was follow up discussion on what the eternal effects of that second marriage will be in light of our sealing policies. Sorry for this thread jack – I could discuss this all day, but better end it here.

108. hmmm – first thanks for not spelling my name correctly. Beyond that your comment is pointless and offers little to the discussion. Please tell me how you have understood the Lord better than the rest of us. How am I undermining authority?

IDIAT, I wonder why this does not come up more often in discussions. If you’re correct about what happens, then I wonder if polygamy will be mandatory or just optional for those who are too weak to simply wait for the promised reunion. The polygamy currently practiced seems extaordinarily dismissive and cruel to the deceased spouse since the deceased spouse has no input or say into bringing another person into the relationship. (that simple idea sounds plain creepy in my head as I type it out.) I don’t know the mechanics of how polygamy was practiced before the Mainfesto but I suspect the extant spouses had some input or say into bringing another person into the marriage before the polygamous nuptials were said. Perhaps the wives had no say in who else was brought into the marriage or when and how that worked, e.g. a husband could date a prospective new wife on Mondays, Wednesdays and every other Saturday and the rest of the time was supposed to be spent with the wives to whom he was already married and their progeny. As I continue to type, this the practical aspects of polygamy sound bizarre, comical and wholly inconsistent with the what we currently teach about marital covenants, fidelity (lock your hearts blah, blah, blah) and our immature cultural Mormon mores about men and women being in close proximity to each other. (One quick example, recently our RS president’s family was down one car and I offered to give her a ride to Ward Council to save her the hassle of driving back home after Ward Council to collect her husband kids for the 3-hour block. Her first response to my offer was “Let me ask my husband if I can ride with you alone.” He said yes and we had a pleasant 20 minute Sunday morning drive to Ward Council together.)

With the barrier of death, the dead spouse is likely cut out of the decision making loop altogether, unless she or he made her wishes known before passing on. Polygamy will force us to really re-examine what we believe, teach and practice about marriage. In these few, glib blogposts I am starting to get too confused about the implications of it all. I need to pivot back to more concrete errors like that damn Mall. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

This whole area of “How can prophets make mistakes if they are inspired” has recently become of great interest to me. I have long been of the mind that the church’s past emphasis–for example, Joseph Smith’s oft-used “don’t speak ill of the Lord’s anointed,”–and their past 20-30 year increasing emphasis on “follow the prophet”, has served to place past and current leaders (both local and general) on pedestals much higher than deserved. I know it is useful/important for any organization/community to respect its leaders. However, the church–both officially and locally–have gone too far. Culturally and traditionally (oft-used as the excuse by apologists for blaming stupid beliefs and “doctrines” on the people not on the leaders who created and promulgated most of them) we now seem to have not come very far from the (was it 1925?) pronouncement in an official document that “When the brethren decide, the thinking has been done.” Yes, it was countered by JS Smith–BUT NOT OFFICIALLY, NOT IN ANOTHER OFFICIAL DOCUMENT. I had more than one otherwise intelligent friend in the church decide they had to support Prop 8 in order to “follow the prophet.”

There is no way to explain the overwhelming number of times the Apostles and Prophets, let alone local stake and ward leaders have done the wrong thing other than to conclude that they are simply men and God is going to let them screw up forever. If they weren’t so prone to seeking only the council of the Lord, and weren’t all so old and out of touch, perhaps they would maker better decisions.

My stake president (about 18 months ago) split my and another ward to create a new ward. It did all kinds of damage–in addition to leaving a couple of wards with way too few active members. I know for a fact he didn’t council with even his presidency. AND, he claimed inspiration from God at the special meeting of the two wards where he announced the action. But, I wax personal.

“What happened is exactly the opposite: SWK decided to lift the ban first and then prayed for confirmation that this was what the Lord wanted. That is something that no other prophet before had been willing to do, but my firm belief is that, if they had done so, they would have received the same answer.”

The Kimball article would seem to indicate the contrary:

“President McKay desired and sought such revelation, but he did not receive it. He told Elder Marion D. Hanks that “he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord but had not had the answer he sought.”

It would be reasonable to assume President McKay was familiar with the Lord’s direction to Oliver Cowdery and so went to the Lord with a specific course of action i.e. I think the ban should be lifted but didn’t get the answer that was the correct course of action.

MCQ–I think you were peeved mostly because I accused you of counseling the Lord. Your apology is accepted. Thank you. Moving on…

1. Revelation/divine guidance through the gift of the Holy Ghost is often (though very public at times) a personal matter and granted to us in various ways, whether or not the answers are sought. I love the story from Kimball about Elder Packer asking SWK, “Why can’t you just drop the matter?” Then he answers His own question, and says, “Because you can’t. The Lord won’t let you.” The Lord’s Spirit evidently pestered SWK, unlike other previous prophets, in preparation for the decisive revelation at the decisive time.

2. Your words: “…thus giving rise to the idea that the ban was his plan all along and needed to be in place until 1978 for some divine reason that we have not been told.”

No, I was not at all suggesting: ‘The ban—His plan’ but rather that He allowed men to determine what they thought best and then stepped in at the precise moment. But here I more or less agree with your following statement:

“I think it’s fair to conclude that the ban was the mistake of men who, though well-meaning, allowed their personal biases to creep into the work of the Lord.”

But it’s not a mistake that frustrated the Lord’s work in any way.

3. However, I disagree with your suggestion that if previous prophets had approached the issue with the same fervency, zeal, and appropriateness (ie.making a decision first before asking for confirmation) of SWK that the ban would have been lifted earlier. Even if they had, I believe the Lord would have remained silent. We, and humanity, still had more stuff to figure out.

Not at all. Experiences in my life have taught me to never underestimate the Lord’s timing in all things. I am awed and amazed—as I am certain most, if not all, of us can attest—at the timing of both my adversities and my blessings. They were all exactly what I needed in my personal “vale of tears.” Not because I think I’m more righteous or more deserving than anyone, but they are lessons for me, and me alone—personal teaching moments from a wise Heavenly Father to one of His children.

4. Using a speculative “What if…” scenario: What if the ban had been lifted much earlier in Church history? What would it have hurt? We really don’t know the ramifications of such a course, though it is difficult to picture any negative result from entitling any worthy man to the priesthood. 2 Nephi 26:33 dictates the availability of the gospel to all men regardless of race, status, and gender. But in matters of priesthood authority, the Lord does discriminate: “No man taketh this honor unto himself, except…” Bestowal of the priesthood was/is essentially sexist, racist (without divine policy—scriptural or revelatory), and tribalist (biblical times), along with minimum age requirements. But the fact is: the priesthood is the Lord’s authority to give to whom He will, when He will, and for what He will.

But the fact is: the priesthood is the Lord’s authority to give to whom He will, when He will, and for what He will.

If that is so, then the part I’m not seeing is the Lord’s hand in the beginning of the ban. The Lord didn’t make that decision. There has never been any evidence brought by anyone ever that the ban began as the result of a revelation from the Lord. That being the case, your above statement, if true, stands as an indictment of those who allowed the policies of men to deprive a race of people of the priesthood for much too long.

McQ, Well, that’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? “Was BY speaking as a man or a prophet when he issued a priesthood ban?” If speaking as a prophet, it flies in the lack of evidence of any revelation on the subject, as DOM’s committee concluded, but we have no evidence that revelation wasn’t received either. As the saying goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” And though the Lord reveal His secrets to His prophets (Amos 1:7), their revelations are not always made public. Here’s a theory (that probably doesn’t hold any water): Missionary work being largely a priesthood responsibility, perhaps the gathering of the tribe of Ephraim was first necessary in order for them to take the Gospel to the world, including Blacks.

But if BY was speaking as a man, then he will be held accountable and those so deprived will be fully compensated.

It sounds to me like you are somewhat angry and bitter about it, and wanting to assign blame and culpability for something you believe was preventable. If I may say, there are worse things… (Enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt for 430 years; the gospel was never preached in China and India, currently the most populous nations on earth; the Holocaust and Stalin’s massacres, etc.)

Perhaps the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1-15) is helpful in resolving our dilemma. The laborers who worked all day were paid the same amount as those who were hired late in the day. (It’s worth re-reading E. Holland’s 2012 April conference sermon.) Those to whom the priesthood was prohibited but is now within their reach, will be compensated the same as the other races who were blessed with God’s authority in ages past. It’s really a parable of God’s compassion, mercy, and grace:

“My beloved brothers and sisters, what happened in this story at 9:00 or noon or 3:00 is swept up in the grandeur of the universally generous payment at the end of the day. The formula of faith is to hold on, work on, see it through, and let the distress of earlier hours—real or imagined—fall away in the abundance of the final reward. Don’t dwell on old issues or grievances—not toward yourself nor your neighbor nor even, I might add, toward this true and living Church” (Holland, April 2012).

Was BY speaking as a man or a prophet when he issued a priesthood ban?

Tiger, you are showing your bias now. If Brother Brigham received a revelation on this issue, I guarantee you we would know about it. The journal of discourses and other accounts of Young’s presidency show enough detail that we can be virtually certain that any revelation received on the subject would have been documented by someone. But we needn’t speculate. Young never claimed there was any revelation. Neither has anyone else. You can’t make the case for revelation unless there is at least one positive claim by someone somewhaere at or near the time that revelation was received on this issue. There is none.

I don’t think I’m angry about the ban. I think I get frustrated when people bend over backwards double and triple times over to try to speculate that the ban originated with God. There is simply no evidence of that whatsoever, and it is contrary to God’s revealed word in the scriptures. Thus, those who try to engage in bootstrapping arguments to justify it on some irrational basis seem to me to be in the thrall of some idea that our prophets have to be infallible. We know that they are not, yet confronted with evidence of a mistake, some find it impossible to accept.

The fact that other atrocities happened throughout history is completely irrelevant. We are not comparing the ban with other historical occurences or ranking it on a list. One has to be able to condemn something as a mistake without comparing it to the holocaust (which, by the way, was not a mistake, but an intentional act of murder on a massive scale, and not at all comparable to the ban in any way).

I am certain that the Lord is fully capable of richly compensating those who were harmed by the ban. I don’t blame God or the Church for the ban, but neither am I willing to simply assume that it was all part of the plan. It seems obvious to me that it was a tragic mistake, and I don’t need to invent fairy stories to cover that fact.

In the case of revelation that applies to the body of the church, the law of common consent would hold otherwise (D&C 26:2). We are not Arthur Dent and revelations on issues as central to the restoration as priesthood are not bypass plans on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”

Oh, I’m sorry… is my bias showing?? My bad. I did not think I was hiding any bias. Here is relevant commentary from Elder Faust in his October 1989 sermon:

“The responsibility for determining the divine validity of what one of the oracles of God states does not rest solely upon him. President J. Reuben Clark stated, “We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we, ourselves, are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’”

This is in harmony with the counsel of Brigham Young: ‘I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not’…

We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators. Yet I humbly state that I have sat in the company of these men, and I believe their greatest desire is to know and do the will of our Heavenly Father.”

So I guess it comes down to basically what you suggested earlier (#114) and to what Church leaders, including BY himself, have taught—-to pray with real intent and ask if church leaders were/are walking in harmony His divine will. In the absence of pure knowledge, if one can ask about the truthfulness of the First Vision, then there’s no reason a church member couldn’t, with faith in Christ, formulate his own conclusion and make a sincere inquiry regarding the ban.

I agree with that Tiger, and I haven’t had any such revelation, but I don’t feel inclined to inquire either, as it seems a matter of neer certainty and practical common sense that the whole thing was a mistake from the start. Bothering the Lord for confirmation of that would seem beyond silly to me and I would openly expect the Lord God Almighty to kick me in the ass and tell me not to bother him with inanities of only academic consequence.